Does he actually try and win cases? My impression is that his firm signs up clients and settles, or co-counsels with trial attorneys if anything actually goes to trial. But I don’t practice in PI, so I have no frame of reference
You’re describing most law firms. Settlements are wins. That said, if I was shopping for an attorney to represent my civil case I would want the best trial attorney I could find.
I thought these firms usually refer out all the clients they take in in exchange for a finder’s fee but I could be mistaken. I haven’t personally dealt with them.
It’s predatory AF. Capture your market share. Refer out everything “hard” because it takes more work than pushing papers for policy limits. Take a 50% cut of all referral fees for doing nothing. If the litigation attorney won’t take 50%, find someone who will. Profit.
Plus many of them illegally cap cases. I am surprised there have not been more capping cases under NRS 7.075 – disgorging fees with a 2x penalty and attorney fees could be quite lucrative.
I think many attorneys making a bunch of money capping would avoid discovery at all costs. Other potentially responsible parties paid by the attorneys to solicit would probably flip to avoid responsibility. The lawyers would likely prefer to settle to keep their conduct quiet and the to keep the machine rolling and most of them don’t really know how to litigate–they’d have to pay other better lawyers a lot of money to defend them.
The problem is that trial lawyers will have the law changed if anyone actually started to use it. Even the decent ones are beholden to the A tier PI gang that made their money capping. NJA has bought and paid for the legislature. So even though they were shamed into the statute–shame don’t buy private jets. Right now none of their clients know about the law, but it will go down the first time one of the capping ballers gets hit with one of these suits.
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2026 12:17 pm
Are the US Supreme Court justices super human readers? In Allen v. Milligan (emergency appeal involving Alabama’s redistricting maps) The justices received a complex, 107-page emergency legal briefing at 5:00 p.m. on a Monday, and issued an order 38 minutes later at 5:38 p.m, including a five page dissent.
No, but they know it’s coming and have time to prepare.
Guest
Anonymous
May 19, 2026 1:14 pm
The changes to student loans don’t go far enough. The whole program should be eliminated.
Nationally, there is a pervasive misconception that this isn’t borrowing but merely free money. This misconception is particularly acute at the commencement of the repayment phase, when most borrowers adopt a victim mentality, like somehow they were scammed. They protest, and loudly. At that point, the politicians enter and give comfort by saying “don’t worry sweet children, we’ll make those evil taxpayers pay it back for you.”
In a sane world, educational lending would be undertaken by banks with training and expertise in things like risk and creditworthiness. The government has no business being in the lending game. When has government ever demonstrated restraint or pragmatism where money is concerned?
Tell me you don’t know anyone who has ever worked for the federal government without telling me you don’t know anyone who has ever worked for the federal government.
You want restraint? Go find a water cooler in a federal office. Then ask the people nearby why they are shelling out their own money for fuckin’ water during a workday. You want pragmatism? Go talk to a SNAP administrator. They chase down fraud not because it’s so pervasive (it isn’t) or because it consumes so many dollars (it doesn’t), but because people like you get on the front page of newspapers and bitch about the small fraud that does happen, and suddenly the political will to feed the fucking hungry goes out the window.
Students are an investment in this country’s future. We should damn well treat them that way.
I agree with you both. The government should not be in the business of student lending. On the other hand, a lot of morons did get scammed into going to a shitty college for a worthless degree. So, the government should stop doing student loans, and current student loans should be forgiven. At the very least, they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Exactly. I needed some loans to get through school, but my obligation was basically the equivalent of financing a new car, not a new house. It doesn’t need to be free, but it should be reasonably affordable.
When Obama removed the maximum a student could borrow under the federal systems, the result was predictable and it has occurred. The predatory “non profit” colleges showed the country what they are all about and they raised tuition at more than double the inflation rate every year. Go look at charts comparing healthcare costs since obamacare helped “people” cover their costs, education since loan restrictions and caps were removed and the general inflation rate. It should teach you a lot about economics and what rational actors do. This was easy to foresee and many wrote about the result. The greed of the “non profits” (the administrators and profs at the non profits take all the money) is disgusting. Any default should be the colleges’ problem, not the public’s.
Yes, this is a total market failure. The professors and administrators have literally NO RISK and can set whatever price they want (and consequently, whatever salaries they want). I would make universities indemnify 20% of every federal loan. On default, their 20% becomes immediately due.
Education cannot be affordable when colleges need to payoff former politicians for all the federal grant money with barely show up type jobs that pay $450,000 per year.
I always tell people applying to law schools to go wherever you can go for free/you get a scholarship or some money to attend. The difference between a free education at a top 50 or 100 law school is not worth paying full boat at a better school (top 10 or 15 MAY be the exception).
I tell people the same thing. The good, hard working attorneys from Thomas Jefferson make the same as the Northwestern grads in Vegas. Nobody cares after you’re barred. Go to UNLV or anywhere you can get a scholarship.
This is close to the right advice. Sometimes, these “scholarships” are like Memorial Day mattress sales- the original price is inflated and the “discount” (i.e. scholarship) still leaves a hefty bill. Go to the school with the lowest net tuition cost, whether that is straight up the cheapest (BYU) or you get their with scholarships. Don’t be duped into enrolling at a school that “charges” $90,000/year in tuituion and gives you (and nearly everyone else) a $20,000 “scholarship”.
10:02 here – that’s right. Don’t take a partial scholarship for an inflated yearly tuition, or a scholarship you could lose if you aren’t in the top 10% of your class etc. The idea is to get out of law school with the least amount of debt because that opens up your career options (even if you don’t want to practice law, or you want to go directly in-house, etc.). I went to a top 20 law school, which I realize is subjective. Had a partial scholarship but still paid through the nose. If I was advising my younger self, I would’ve taken a full ride somewhere else, worked hard, and probably still ended up in the same spot.
This is exactly the advice given by the Thinking LSAT podcast, which was one of my main resources when applying to law school. They’re hardliners on believing you shouldn’t pay a dime, otherwise you’re a rube. They provide all the direction and resources so you can get all the relevant financials and scholarship information from schools, and then use them against each other during negotiations.
If you’re paying more than $50k for law school (cost of living included), you’ve been played.
Guest
Anonymous
May 20, 2026 1:24 pm
I miss the CCBA “Gavelhead” Photo Directory. There are so many faces around the courthouse that look familiar that I wish we could put faces with names again.
(N.B. I don’t really think 2:52 is Matt. This comment is mildly mocking the inevitable comments we see here whenever someone is called out for an atta-boy/atta-girl by name.)
https://www.tmz.com/2026/05/18/holly-madison-dating-las-vegas-attorney-steve-dimopoulos/
How old is this guy?? His ads make him look 25 and his real pics look 60ish. Why do attorneys do this LOL.
He’s a joke! Enjoy the fun while it lasts.
I’d say early 40s
This is an interesting town. No need to hate on anybody.
now that stupid song is stuck in my head
What about this says I am hating? I gave no comment on his looks other than the huge age discrepancy in photos (which is a fact).
Does he actually try and win cases? My impression is that his firm signs up clients and settles, or co-counsels with trial attorneys if anything actually goes to trial. But I don’t practice in PI, so I have no frame of reference
You’re describing most law firms. Settlements are wins. That said, if I was shopping for an attorney to represent my civil case I would want the best trial attorney I could find.
Claggett & Sykes
I thought these firms usually refer out all the clients they take in in exchange for a finder’s fee but I could be mistaken. I haven’t personally dealt with them.
It’s predatory AF. Capture your market share. Refer out everything “hard” because it takes more work than pushing papers for policy limits. Take a 50% cut of all referral fees for doing nothing. If the litigation attorney won’t take 50%, find someone who will. Profit.
Plus many of them illegally cap cases. I am surprised there have not been more capping cases under NRS 7.075 – disgorging fees with a 2x penalty and attorney fees could be quite lucrative.
I think many attorneys making a bunch of money capping would avoid discovery at all costs. Other potentially responsible parties paid by the attorneys to solicit would probably flip to avoid responsibility. The lawyers would likely prefer to settle to keep their conduct quiet and the to keep the machine rolling and most of them don’t really know how to litigate–they’d have to pay other better lawyers a lot of money to defend them.
The problem is that trial lawyers will have the law changed if anyone actually started to use it. Even the decent ones are beholden to the A tier PI gang that made their money capping. NJA has bought and paid for the legislature. So even though they were shamed into the statute–shame don’t buy private jets. Right now none of their clients know about the law, but it will go down the first time one of the capping ballers gets hit with one of these suits.
Are the US Supreme Court justices super human readers? In Allen v. Milligan (emergency appeal involving Alabama’s redistricting maps) The justices received a complex, 107-page emergency legal briefing at 5:00 p.m. on a Monday, and issued an order 38 minutes later at 5:38 p.m, including a five page dissent.
No, but they sure do like to pretend that they aren’t political actors.
They use AI. It was five minutes after upload and they had the opinion written.
Chatte and Claude, LLP strikes again!
No, but they know it’s coming and have time to prepare.
The changes to student loans don’t go far enough. The whole program should be eliminated.
Nationally, there is a pervasive misconception that this isn’t borrowing but merely free money. This misconception is particularly acute at the commencement of the repayment phase, when most borrowers adopt a victim mentality, like somehow they were scammed. They protest, and loudly. At that point, the politicians enter and give comfort by saying “don’t worry sweet children, we’ll make those evil taxpayers pay it back for you.”
In a sane world, educational lending would be undertaken by banks with training and expertise in things like risk and creditworthiness. The government has no business being in the lending game. When has government ever demonstrated restraint or pragmatism where money is concerned?
Tell me you don’t know anyone who has ever worked for the federal government without telling me you don’t know anyone who has ever worked for the federal government.
You want restraint? Go find a water cooler in a federal office. Then ask the people nearby why they are shelling out their own money for fuckin’ water during a workday. You want pragmatism? Go talk to a SNAP administrator. They chase down fraud not because it’s so pervasive (it isn’t) or because it consumes so many dollars (it doesn’t), but because people like you get on the front page of newspapers and bitch about the small fraud that does happen, and suddenly the political will to feed the fucking hungry goes out the window.
Students are an investment in this country’s future. We should damn well treat them that way.
Right, we need all those failed illiterate humanities majors owing $175k and not getting their degree.
I agree with you both. The government should not be in the business of student lending. On the other hand, a lot of morons did get scammed into going to a shitty college for a worthless degree. So, the government should stop doing student loans, and current student loans should be forgiven. At the very least, they should be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Pay back your PPP loan then talk.
PPP was my tax refund. Cry Harder sis.
sort of a rebate
In a sane world education would be affordable without crippling loans.
Exactly. I needed some loans to get through school, but my obligation was basically the equivalent of financing a new car, not a new house. It doesn’t need to be free, but it should be reasonably affordable.
When Obama removed the maximum a student could borrow under the federal systems, the result was predictable and it has occurred. The predatory “non profit” colleges showed the country what they are all about and they raised tuition at more than double the inflation rate every year. Go look at charts comparing healthcare costs since obamacare helped “people” cover their costs, education since loan restrictions and caps were removed and the general inflation rate. It should teach you a lot about economics and what rational actors do. This was easy to foresee and many wrote about the result. The greed of the “non profits” (the administrators and profs at the non profits take all the money) is disgusting. Any default should be the colleges’ problem, not the public’s.
Yes, this is a total market failure. The professors and administrators have literally NO RISK and can set whatever price they want (and consequently, whatever salaries they want). I would make universities indemnify 20% of every federal loan. On default, their 20% becomes immediately due.
Education cannot be affordable when colleges need to payoff former politicians for all the federal grant money with barely show up type jobs that pay $450,000 per year.
I always tell people applying to law schools to go wherever you can go for free/you get a scholarship or some money to attend. The difference between a free education at a top 50 or 100 law school is not worth paying full boat at a better school (top 10 or 15 MAY be the exception).
I tell people the same thing. The good, hard working attorneys from Thomas Jefferson make the same as the Northwestern grads in Vegas. Nobody cares after you’re barred. Go to UNLV or anywhere you can get a scholarship.
Nah, dawg. If you can only get into a fourth tier school, don’t go.
4th tier grad here. Attorney now. My job provides a great life for my family. No one cares where you went to school. Just be competent.
Is Boyd fourth tier now? My alma mater is moving up!
This is close to the right advice. Sometimes, these “scholarships” are like Memorial Day mattress sales- the original price is inflated and the “discount” (i.e. scholarship) still leaves a hefty bill. Go to the school with the lowest net tuition cost, whether that is straight up the cheapest (BYU) or you get their with scholarships. Don’t be duped into enrolling at a school that “charges” $90,000/year in tuituion and gives you (and nearly everyone else) a $20,000 “scholarship”.
10:02 here – that’s right. Don’t take a partial scholarship for an inflated yearly tuition, or a scholarship you could lose if you aren’t in the top 10% of your class etc. The idea is to get out of law school with the least amount of debt because that opens up your career options (even if you don’t want to practice law, or you want to go directly in-house, etc.). I went to a top 20 law school, which I realize is subjective. Had a partial scholarship but still paid through the nose. If I was advising my younger self, I would’ve taken a full ride somewhere else, worked hard, and probably still ended up in the same spot.
This is exactly the advice given by the Thinking LSAT podcast, which was one of my main resources when applying to law school. They’re hardliners on believing you shouldn’t pay a dime, otherwise you’re a rube. They provide all the direction and resources so you can get all the relevant financials and scholarship information from schools, and then use them against each other during negotiations.
If you’re paying more than $50k for law school (cost of living included), you’ve been played.
I miss the CCBA “Gavelhead” Photo Directory. There are so many faces around the courthouse that look familiar that I wish we could put faces with names again.
Great job Matt Johnson!
Came here to say that! Well done Matt! Dave is a good man thank God it all worked out thanks to your quick thinking.
Thanks, Matt.
(N.B. I don’t really think 2:52 is Matt. This comment is mildly mocking the inevitable comments we see here whenever someone is called out for an atta-boy/atta-girl by name.)
….or people are being nice? Is that possible, you think?
JFC. Way to have your panties pre-wadded just waiting for the right reason to reflexively vent your idiocy all over Beyonce’s interwebs.